Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

Clause 11 - Duty to assess childcare provision

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 11, in page 6, line 13, at end insert
‘, which should have regard to the demands and needs of families as set out in section 6.’.—[Mr. Gibb.]

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 86, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1A)An assessment under subsection (1) must include the childcare needs of children whose parents are not working.’.
No. 272, in page 6, line 13, after ‘assessments”’, insert
‘which must include an assessment of—
(a)the supply of childcare provision available locally, and
(b)the childcare requirements of parents living in the area’.
No. 271, in page 6, line 23, after ‘criteria’, insert
‘which must include an assessment of the quality of the childcare provision available locally’.
No. 304, in clause 26, page 12, line 40, at end insert—
‘(2A)Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision requiring a local authority to review an assessment following the provision of relevant evidence, not previously considered, by parents.’.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure, Mr. Amess, to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship. As you will recall, you were involved with my board for the approved list of parliamentary candidates, and my fear is that all your worst fears are coming true.
I think that this morning I was bringing my remarks to a close by referring to the briefing from the four child care organisations, the National Childminding Association, the Preschool Learning Alliance, 4Children and the Daycare Trust, which believe that making specific reference to both supply and demand in clause 11 will assist local authorities in fulfilling their strategic leadership role. Indeed, the guidance that the Minister has kindly sent us refers at great length to both the supply and the demand sides. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the comments that I made just before lunch, if she can remember them.

Annette Brooke: In some ways it is fortunate that we might not remember all the words of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), because that allows me to be repetitive without having to apologise. There are similarities, as we said this morning, between the Conservatives’ amendments  and amendment No. 272, which I wish to address. We have exactly the same objectives and those are echoed by some of the major organisations.
The purpose of amendment No. 272 is fairly clear: it is to ensure that the regular child care assessments that the new duty would oblige local authorities to carry out would include an assessment of parents’ demand for child care, both met and unmet, as well as of local child care provision. We have already heard that it is important to consider both supply and demand. I should like to add to this morning’s comments by saying that I welcome the proposals under clause 12 on the children’s information service and the idea that a local authority has to be proactive, possibly by engaging in outreach work to identify additional demand. There is a case for demand to be mentioned in the Bill.
Amendment No. 271, which was also covered towards the end of this morning’s debate, seeks to include quality in the definition of sufficiency—that is to say that the criteria should include an assessment of the quality of child care provision available. We debated the matter at great length under clause 6 and I remain unconvinced that it should not be the local authority’s duty to have anything to do with quality. We are aware that Ofsted will be involved, and although it can—and might well—be called in to make an inspection, inspections will generally take place once every three years.
It does not seem to me unreasonable to include quality as a criterion. It is difficult to define, but I am minded to say to the Minister that I am sure that precise definitions could be included in guidance. It is not our job, we are told, to write the guidance. We will read it in the Library in due course, when we notice that it has arrived. I cannot accept the argument that the fact that there is no definition of quality in the Bill is a reason for not accepting the amendment. Quality is an established concept in child care and early years provision, and part 3 of the Bill does take on the issue of quality in an important manner. Everyone is agreed that we are not talking just about the quantity of child care. Quality is of great importance and will be the real determinant of the future development of children who have benefited from child care.
When a local authority is in a commissioning role and it has the job of mapping out the child care that is available locally, it is all-important to include quality in the mapping. As a minimum, that could mean a reference to the latest Ofsted inspections, but I hope that it would go further. As I have explained several times before, I am keen on self-evaluation quality assurance, and the mapping could make reference to that, indicating which providers had, for example, achieved various awards in that sphere. The approach could be quite simple. The definition of quality would need to be worked up between local authorities and the main providers. I ask the Minister seriously to consider including quality in this part of the Bill, because the issue returns again and again; the use of the term “sufficiency” has a clear quantitative element. Yet in the sphere that we are considering, of all spheres, quality is all-important.
I should like my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to speak to amendment No. 304, which relates specifically to Wales.

Roger Williams: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate this morning. It is a pleasure to speak to amendment No. 304, which relates to part 2 of the Bill on child care provision in Wales. It would give an element of parent power to the parents of children in local authorities in Wales. After an assessment of the sufficiency or appropriateness of the amount of child care in an area, things would change, almost from the day of the assessment. The amendment would bring changes in local circumstances to the attention of the local authority; a request could be made to reassess whether child care was sufficient.
The issue was brought to my attention recently when parents in a community were unable to get access to child care because a bus service had been taken away. As a result, all the parents who did not have a car or access to a car could not get to the facility that had been available. A question arises from that, given the local authority duty under the Bill to provide an assessment. There would be a huge difference in the facilities available to those families. The amendment would therefore enable parents to tell the local authority that there had been a material change in their circumstances and ask it, before the next full assessment in two or three years or whatever the Assembly might require, to take matters in hand and carry out an assessment immediately.

Beverley Hughes: The issues that we are now debating are considered in more detail in the paper that I made available to the Committee yesterday evening about local authority assessments of the sufficiency of child care. It might be helpful if the Committee were to realise that clause 11 replaces and expands current provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which contains a duty requiring local authorities to review annually the sufficiency of their child care, but which does not require them to take any action in the light of what they find.
I agree absolutely that the needs assessment must relate to the child care that parents require, but some of the amendments would have unintended and unhelpful side effects.
Amendment No. 11 wishes to tie clause 11 to the duties under clause 6. Although clause 11 relates to clause 6, it relates also to clause 7, which provides the individual child with the entitlement to early years provision for children of a prescribed age. I should not want to downplay that important link with clause 7.
Amendment No. 86 would require the needs assessment in clause 11 to include the child care needs of non-working parents. That is unnecessary. If hon. Members have had a chance to consider the document I circulated yesterday evening, they will have seen that the assessment must take into account the needs of all parents. It must be a comprehensive assessment.
The second page of that document proposes that the regulations would require an undertaking assessment. That includes a range of matters: the current level of each type of care available; the needs of lower income families; the requirements of all parents of children up to 14, or 16, if the child is disabled; the views of parents, children, carers, providers and the community; parents’ and carers’ demand for child care to enable them to work if they choose to; issues relating to localised under-supply, or inappropriate patterns and types of child care; and even the needs of parents who live outside the local authority area, but use providers in it, possibly because they work there or want to work there.
The regulations in line with what I have just said will lay out clearly which groups the local authority should consult to ensure that it meets the needs of parents, families and employers. Local authorities will need to understand also what child care the private and voluntary sector can provide to ensure a diverse market to give parents a real choice.
Turning to amendment No. 272, I agree that the issues are important for inclusion in the assessment process, but such factors would be better and more fully addressed through regulations. It is inconceivable that a meaningful assessment could take place without taking those issues into account, but it is not helpful to include them in the Bill.
As the document lays out in some detail, we expect local authorities to take account of a range of factors when deciding whether provision is sufficient. They include, on the supply side, the number of places, their hours of opening, the type of provision, the price charged and the accessibility of provision; and on the demand side, the number of places required and the hours at which places are required—both for parents who reside in the local authority, and for other parents who travel into that area for child care. We cannot and should not attempt to include all those issues in the Bill, and I should not want any list to be interpreted as a constraint on what could be included.
Amendment No. 271 would require local authorities to assess the quality of child care provision, as part of their overall assessment of the child care market. I have already stressed how much of the Bill is about quality. There is a fundamental misunderstanding or misconception about the arrangements for ensuring and assessing quality. The arrangements are enshrined in national standards that are regulated by Ofsted, the inspecting body. Local authorities do not want another layer of inspection, and nor do providers, particularly those in the voluntary and private sector. They should not thank us for imposing another layer on them.
By way of reassurance, I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) has tried to make clear, the process of registration will ensure that only those providers who meet the quality standards for registration will succeed in being registered. The provider will demonstrate the evidence that it is meeting the quality standards. Ofsted will make an initial visit at the point of  registration with an unannounced follow-up visit within seven months to ensure that the standards have been implemented. We have to get it right in our minds. Ofsted is the national body to ensure national standards and we cannot expect local authorities or providers to want another layer of quality inspection to intervene as a result of the process. We have to leave that to Ofsted.

Nick Gibb: I thought the point of the amendment was not to set up a new inspection regime for child care quality assessment but to point the assessment process towards quality. It is perfectly possible for the local authority to use the Ofsted reports in assessing the quality of the provision. To rely only on the inspection from when the child care provision is first established may not be enough because in two, three, four or five years’ time the quality may have deteriorated. When the authority is making a periodic assessment every three years, it should take into account the current quality and not just the quality of the provision when it was established several years before.

Beverley Hughes: This is not an assessment of quality. Clause 11 relates to the assessment of sufficiency. As we debated in clause 6, the extent to which local authorities are required to fulfil their duty under sufficiency includes, crucially, sufficient child care for parents who can claim working tax credit. To claim working tax credit, child care has to be registered. We are talking predominately about registered child care, and for registration purposes the Ofsted process is by definition the guarantee of quality. I accept that in ongoing work with local providers through the provision of training—both by local authorities and visiting providers—local authorities will act if they have concerns about quality.
In general, Ofsted is the national body established to ensure that quality standards are reached. We cannot establish such an assessment because it would involve another layer of apparatus and we cannot expect local authorities to do that. We would have to define what we meant, whereas the Bill defines quality standards for the early years foundation stage which Ofsted will translate into the indicators for which it will look. Assessing child care is a complicated job and it is not something that can be simply done in a short space of time. That is why we have a well established and detailed apparatus under Ofsted to perform that function for us. As appealing as it might sound, simply saying that local authorities have to be concerned about quality in the assessment would mean in practice that they would replicate what Ofsted already does.

Annette Brooke: I want to ask a simple question, which is not meant to be particularly deep or profound. The local authority has a duty to provide sufficiency, which is only a quantitative measure. Does the definition of sufficiency include settings with an Ofsted report which, although poor, is not enough to close them down?

Beverley Hughes: Clearly, in those circumstances, Ofsted, with its risk-based approach to assessment, will consider making further, unannounced visits to any child care provider about whom it has concerns or who is only just above the approval threshold. I am sure that it will talk to the local authorities in those circumstances and they will work with the providers to see whether, through training and other support, they can raise the standard of their provision. Ultimately—this is important, because it assures parents of the consistency of decision making—it will be Ofsted that decides whether that child care meets the right standard. It will not be the case that no one looks at a provider who is causing concern: Ofsted will go in successively and will talk to the local authority, which will work with the provider to try to raise standards. It is a process in which people will be talking and working together. Only if Ofsted ultimately decides that the provider is not coming up to standard will the registration be removed.

Ann Coffey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities would be put in a difficult position if they were given the additional duty? If there was a provider with places whom Ofsted had registered as being of sufficient quality and the local authority decided, on some other basis, that it did not meet their quality standards, what would the local authority’s position be if the provider decided to appeal against its decision?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend graphically starts to take us into the tortuous processes, decision making and confusion that would arise if there were two standards of quality—one operated by Ofsted and one by the local authority. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that he was perfectly happy with that possibility, but I do not know how parents would begin to make sense of it, let alone how local authorities and the providers would understand such a convoluted and two-tier system.
We established Ofsted because we wanted to ensure that there was a nationally endorsed standard that made sense to parents and which parents knew about. Indeed, the Ofsted brand has been successful in being recognised by parents, who have a great deal of confidence in its process and the results of its decision making. That is the validated way that we have established to assure quality standards, and it is one that parents understand. We should not confuse the situation by bringing in something else that is undefined and not thought through, which would totally complicate the situation for parents and providers.

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Nick Gibb: What the Minister is saying is interesting. She is clarifying matters very well, but Ofsted is an inspection organisation. Many schools languish in special measures for more than a year, and Ofsted’s inspection and repeated inspections, and guidance even, are sometimes not enough to improve standards. The same undoubtedly applies in early child care  settings. Therefore, the Minister is sub-contracting quality assurance to Ofsted, which is really an inspection regime.
It is odd that, under the Minister’s regime, she is willing to allow primary schools to drive out perfectly valid and high-quality child care—primary schools are exempted from the caveat in the Bill—but is not prepared to drive out, through the local authorities providing new child care provision, child care settings that are of very poor quality, as determined by Ofsted.

Beverley Hughes: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I cannot say it any more gently than that. He is returning to a point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with. No one on the Labour Benches has ever said that we are happy for primary schools to drive out perfectly good providers. They are his words and no one else’s, as far as I can recall.
Local authorities have a role in relation to ongoing improvement, if that is what the hon. Gentleman means by quality assurance—he introduced the issue of schools, but this point relates to schools and child care providers. Many have their own quality assurance standards, and they work with providers to help them meet those standards. That is different from the process of regulation and inspection that we think should be the benchmark when the local authority goes through the comprehensive assessment, considering what parents need for the supply of child care, so that it can identify the gaps and work to fill them. The point at which it seeks to facilitate the market to provide more child care is not the ongoing improvement of practice. At that point, it wants to know whether the providers meet Ofsted standards, which is what they will have to do.

Annette Brooke: I am in total agreement and just want to clarify matters. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The Minister has clarified that the local authority has a role to play in the quality agenda and in working with Ofsted. That is what I have tried to say all along: the Bill should recognise that the local authority has a role to play.

Beverley Hughes: I am glad that if, through my clarification, we have reached greater common understanding. However, it is not relevant to include that reference in this part of the Bill. We are talking about the assessment process and, on the basis of the assessment process, the identification of gaps that the local authority, with private and voluntary independent providers, can fill to obtain more child care in the authority’s area. At that point, it must obtain the child care that meets the registration standards.
From that point onwards, most authorities have a quality improvement scheme, and they work with providers to ensure that they can access local authority training. That is continuing, as the hon. Lady knows, and it will continue after the Bill is enacted. At the point of the assessment, we cannot helpfully muddy  the waters by using the quality assurance process. We need a common standard that everybody understands, and that is the Ofsted registration process.
On amendment No. 304, I must return to my earlier point, which we will continue to make about the Welsh clauses. Having established the principle that assessments must be kept under review, it is right to leave the detail to be set out in regulations by the National Assembly for Wales. Under the system in England or Wales, it will be possible for parents to say to the local authority, “Our needs have changed. We want you to look at them again.” I hope that with that assurance, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will feel no need to press his amendment to the vote.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In view of the helpful policy document that she circulated last night, and the wide debate in which we have aired our concerns fully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 6, line 13, at end insert
‘, which must be published and a copy sent to the Children’s Commissioner’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 194, in page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a)consult parents and prospective parents in their area,
(b)consult early years providers in their area, including those in private and voluntary sectors,
(c)consult other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area, and
(d)consult young children’.
No. 302, in clause 26, page 12, line 38, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a)consult parents and prospective parents in their area,
(b)consult early years providers in their area, including those in the private and voluntary sectors,
(c)consult other persons engaged in the activities which may improve the wellbeing of young children in their area,
(d)consult young children and,
(e)consult and pay particular attention to the advice of the Children’s Commissioner Wales.’.

Tim Loughton: This is a straightforward amendment, which has been grouped with two amendments in the names of Liberal Democrat Members.
In producing the assessment of the sufficiency of child care provision, the clause ensures that the local authority fully publishes its findings, so that they are visible to the public and to other child care providers, whether private, voluntary, independent or other, so that everybody can see the basis on which the local authority has reached its conclusions and the evidence that it has used, and parents can have full access to those findings to inform their decisions. The amendment would add the provision that a copy of the assessment should be sent to the children’s commissioner.
Again, this is a probing amendment. I am mindful that, in debating the Children Act 2004, which established the children’s commissioner, we placed many requirements on him to account for his work to the Secretary of State, I hope to Parliament and to many others. It would be useful to ensure that, in providing an account of the work that he has been doing, the children’s commissioner is fully informed and has an overview of the sufficiency of the child care provision established in the Bill. Part of his remit is to ensure that the welfare of children of all ages and descriptions is attended to by a range of agencies—local authorities, voluntary organisations and others.
Therefore, amendment No. 106 is a probing amendment to ensure that the findings are fully published and that the children’s commissioner is part of the process of information being passed on, so that he is better informed when making the assessments that he is obliged to make under the 2004 Act.

Roger Williams: Amendments Nos. 194 and 302 place in the Bill the people or bodies of whom inquiries should be made. Again, we include among those people young children. Investors in Children, the quality kitemark created by the DFES, says that, in assessing quality of provision and education, the views of children and young people should be taken into consideration.
I know that we have emphasised this issue before, but we return to it because it is so important. As I understand it, the children’s commissioners in Wales and England place a great deal of emphasis on the value of talking to children and getting their views on issues that affect them and in which they are involved. It would improve the Bill if the profile of children and young people in determining their own services could be enhanced, particularly in Wales, where the commissioner’s role is slightly different from that of his counterpart in England.
I believe that the commissioners should be involved in assessments. In Wales the children’s commissioner can take on complaints from individuals, whether they are parents, children or young adults. By working through those complaints and resolving them, his own work can be better informed. Indeed, in Wales, some of the work that he has done has directly followed on from comments and complaints by young people. For those reasons we believe that which people should be consulted on such matters should be set out in both the English part and the Welsh part of the Bill, and their views should be taken into consideration.

Beverley Hughes: On amendment No. 106, I made it clear this morning when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was necessarily detained in another part of the House that we would require local authorities to publish their assessments. However, it is better to set out the requirements of how and when they do so in regulations because we can take into account different  ways in which the document might be published or how it might be distributed. There is no difference between us in principle on that.
The children’s commissioner will be able to access information, but requiring every local authority to send him a copy of their child care assessment is rather burdensome, not least for the commissioner, who would have reams of paper arriving on his desk. The commissioner will want to focus on particular issues, largely those brought to him by children. Although it will be possible for him to take up an issue relating to an area’s assessment, we should not require authorities routinely to send them to him or require him to receive them.
On amendments Nos. 194 and 302, I have already made it clear in the note that we have circulated that there will be a wide specification of the groups that local authorities have to consult as part of the process, so I hope that hon. Members are assured that they are unnecessary. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Loughton: As I said, my amendment is a probing one. I am sure that the children’s commissioner will be very disappointed not to be festooned with all this extra paperwork.
However, my serious point is that we do not want the children’s commissioner to stick his nose into the successes or shortcomings of a particular authority. That is not his remit and he will have an enormous job of work to do with limited resources compared with those of his counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom, but that is another debate. We want the children’s commissioner to have an overview of how certain authorities are achieving the assessment, so that someone is monitoring that process independently of the Secretary of State—this is one of the joys of being children’s commissioner, someone who jealously guards his independence. That would enable him to determine which authorities are doing it effectively and well and which appear not to be doing it quite so well. He would then be able to report to the Secretary of State and others on the process as he sees it from an independent standpoint.
As I said, this is a probing amendment; the point has been made and the Minister has responded. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Duty to provide information, advice and assistance

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 6, line 40, after ‘provision’, insert
‘, affordability, sustainability and quality’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 177, in page 6, line 40, at end insert—
‘(aa)examples of the potential implications for young children of unregulated childcare;
(ab)parenting classes available in the area of the local authority;’.
No. 191, in page 7, line 2, at end insert—
‘(d)any other services or facilities, or any publications, which may be of benefit to parents of disabled children in their area;
(e)any other services or facilities, or any publications, which may be of benefit to disabled children or young persons in their area.’.
No. 197, in page 7, line 2, at end insert—
‘(d)parental support for their children’s learning.’.

Tim Loughton: Again, these are probing amendments. Amendment No. 108 reflects an earlier discussion, so I shall not go into great detail about it.
Clause 12 relates to the duty of the local authority to provide information, advice and assistance on types of child care provision locally. I can predict what the Minister will tell us from echoes of previous debates. It is important that rather than just list what is available in the area, such as what nursery providers there are and what their capacity is, there is some qualitative assessment. Affordability is also a key factor. Certain nurseries will find that they are less popular with certain providers if they are not as affordable, whatever that is defined as in certain areas.
It is also useful to have some cognisance of their sustainability—by which I mean, how long have the child care providers been in place? Have they just sprung up? If so, one would want to ask rather more penetrating questions about their long-term viability and the viability of their business plans. The last thing that parents want is to get their children settled with one child care provider only to find that that provider has gone out of business and they have to move their children, which is damaging for all involved.
We are just trying to include a marker in the Bill. It is not clear how the information will be provided, but we presume that that will be taken up in regulations, hopefully sooner rather than later. Again we hope that it will be as extensive as possible, particularly in the light of the most disadvantaged families, who need to have things teased out that much more thoroughly.

Ann Coffey: How could a local authority provide information to a parent on how long a particular private provider will last? I do not know on what basis it would be able to do that.

Tim Loughton: That is not what I am asking for. That would be entirely theoretical and nobody is requiring that. However, one can make some reasonable assessments from looking at the track record and history of a nursery. For example, if a nursery is well established, is well used by its immediate area, is popular and has a history of being oversubscribed, those are good signs. If it has just sprung up and is being run by people who are newly qualified, it is worth knowing that information. That is the sort of information that I would wish to know as a parent when assessing a school for my child. I would want to know how long certain teachers had been there, their qualifications and what the ethos of the school was. It is not unreasonable to want that sort of information.
I am certainly not asking the local authority to make business assessments of the financial viability of nurseries, although I am concerned about that. We had a debate earlier about the longer-term sustainability from a financial point of view, particularly if the market becomes too overcrowded and if there is not a level playing field for existing private and voluntary independent providers that have to compete against new, publicly-funded providers where the capital up-front costs have been provided elsewhere and therefore the borrowing requirements are less onerous early on.
The requirements are reasonable and would provide more information than the Bill currently obliges the local authority to provide, although I have to say that subsection (2)(b) seems to be a rather wide-ranging requirement to provide parents with information about
“any other services or facilities, or any publications, which may be of benefit to parents or prospective parents in their area”.
People could argue long and hard about what that involves. It is crucial that some guidance is given to authorities about how their responsibilities could feasibly be discharged, otherwise parents will ask for all sorts of learned works on the operation of certain child care providers.
The second Conservative amendment in the group is amendment No. 191, which again harks back to an earlier argument. The amendment has been suggested by Mencap. It would include in the Bill reference to disabled children and services that are suitable for them. Obviously, all nurseries will have to comply with the specifications in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the more recent legislation. Nurseries that are housed in not-built-for-purpose older buildings will have gone through a greater number of hoops to adapt those premises so that they are suitable for disabled children. Newly built nurseries are obviously expected to be built with all those provisions in place.
However, we need to go beyond the fabric of the building to include information about the qualifications of the staff for dealing with heavily disabled children—both with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Everyone acknowledges that the education and the early years provision for disabled children is inevitably that much more costly and complex.
Some parents may be looking to entrust their disabled children to such care, perhaps on a part-time basis rather than regularly. We discussed the fact that the parents of disabled children are not automatically consulted about the sort of provision that is being established. It is incumbent on local authorities to go that extra mile to ensure a full account of what is available for children with disabilities. It is essential. It can do nothing but help to include it in the Bill.
The amendment would not impose an enormous or onerous requirement on local authorities, but it would be enormously helpful to have that reference. The parents of children with disabilities would have a reference point should a local authority appear, for whatever reason, to provide only the most basic of  information, and certainly information below the threshold that parents would need to make an informed choice about what child care provision they should make for children with particular disabilities.
Amendment No. 191 is supported by Mencap. It would mean that disabled children were explicitly mentioned.

Annette Brooke: I start by pledging the Liberal Democrats wholehearted support for amendment No. 191. In the light of our earlier discussions on the importance and the challenges of providing child care for children with severe disabilities, it is vital.
On amendments Nos. 177 and 197, I have to confess that the latter, which proposes new paragraph (aa), does not express exactly what I intended. I shall explain my purpose and I hope that the Minister will show some tolerance, because I have a genuine crusade—[Interruption.] I thought that if I made a speech on this amendment, I could be much briefer when speaking about other parts of the Bill.
On Second Reading, I outlined a constituency case in which a child could have suffered serious damage. It resulted from a crash that caused concussion. As a result of that incident, I have attempted to amend various parts of the Bill, but I have not asked for extra regulation; that is not the answer in what is already a heavily regulated area.
I have not got the wording of the amendment quite right, but my intentions are honourable. I promise not to run through that case again, but I shall simply refer to it as we progress through the Bill. Baroness Ashton of Upholland wrote to me several years ago about my concerns. She stated:
“As your constituent indicates in her letter, an OFSTED inspector visited the creche in question and found that it was operating illegally. I understand that the inspector raised a number of concerns with them and tried to persuade the manager of the centre to register ... with OFSTED. However, the manager opted to reduce the creche opening hours instead.”
The letter said that while the crèche remained outside the scope of Ofsted’s regulation scheme, no one could intervene. It continued:
“But it might be possible to bring pressure to bear locally on the manager concerned to improve the quality of this provision and extend the hours of operation so that it better serves parents’ needs and can be registered and inspected by OFSTED.”
If a crèche is unregulated, parents should know that, even if it is operating for less than two hours. My intention in paragraph (aa) is that we provide examples of unregulated child care and an explanation as to their implications, so that a parent leaving a child at an unregulated crèche would be aware of the situation and would know what questions to ask. The matter is dear to my heart because we should try to raise awareness about unregulated settings that parents might assume are regulated.
Paragraph (ab) touches on an equally important issue. I think we all want to make parenting classes mainstream, rather than their being seen as a punishment via a parenting order, or existing in some other circumstances in which parents feel stigmatised. An audit of parenting classes should be available, and  a full range of services should be offered, from videos to actual classes. That would be a helpful element of the information provided by the children’s information services.
I recognise that the Minister might say that that would be an additional burden. On the other hand, many information services will probably have partial information on such matters anyway, and it is of the utmost importance. Over and over again, when we reflect on the ills of our society, we say that it comes back to parenting. We should provide the information about where help is available—I have tabled an early-day motion on the matter—and encourage people to see it as a strength to seek help when they are having the sort of difficulties with parenting that I am sure all of us parents have had from time to time.
Amendment No. 197 also concerns the provision of information about how parents can support their learning. By that, I do not mean reading cramming books from a major retailer on how to reach particular development goals, but seeking the good, practical advice that is available through a lot of organisations. It would be useful to signpost to people where they can get such information.
 I accept that we could go on and on listing what the children’s information service should do, and that might be the Minister’s answer, but I have highlighted three important areas that merit being called to the attention of parents. At the same time, I entirely support amendment No. 191.

Maria Eagle: Clause 12 places a duty on local authorities to provide information on child care provision, services, facilities and publications to benefit parents and children in their area, and to provide advice and assistance to parents and prospective parents who are looking for child care. It is clear that we all want to ensure that parents can take advantage of a wide range of services to help them in their parenting role. The duties in clause 12 are designed to ensure that we can help local authorities to provide the information that parents need on a whole range of services that are available to them, and additional advice and assistance will be provided for parents who are looking for child care.
Amendment No. 108 would place in the Bill a requirement for local authorities to provide information on affordability, sustainability and quality of child care. I accept that cost is one of the most important considerations for parents when they are looking for child care, but my difficulty is that affordability is a relative concept. What is affordable for you, Mr. Benton, might not be affordable for the next person in line. It is difficult, and not particularly sensible, to require local authorities to make information available about affordability, which is a relative term. It would be different for each person using the information and for each set of circumstances.
It would be useful for parents to receive information about the child care costs in particular settings in their area, backed up, perhaps, by advice on how to get help with paying them. That is our idea of the sort of advice  that would be useful to parents. We do not want to place an obligation on local authorities to spend a lot of time and effort making variations and complicating the information to make it suitable for all the different types of people who might want to take advantage of it. We intend to use our regulation-making powers to deal with the approach to things, such as affordability, that I have described. Relevant topics might include how to get access to child care tax credit and the care to learn scheme for teenage parents. The regulations and statutory guidance will make that clear.
As for information about quality, we have debated quality and Ofsted, and whether local authorities should attempt to second-guess Ofsted or do the same job in a slightly different way. However, we intend to ensure, through regulations, that information services are required to direct parents to the reports that Ofsted produces to help them to make an informed choice, taking issues of quality into account. It is not particularly sensible to make the local authority go through a process of second-guessing or duplicating Ofsted’s work, which might be the effect of the amendment.
Sustainability is also a key issue for local authorities in the planning of child care and for parents when they decide what provision, in what setting, they want for their children. However, providing information on sustainability is not quite as easy as the amendment makes it sound. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made that point when she accused the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of future-gazing or attempting to make local authorities future-gaze. The amendment would require judgments to be made about circumstances in the future. The hon. Gentleman clearly said that he did not really mean that, but the wording could be taken in that way. There would therefore be a risk that local authorities would feel they had to make an assessment that could turn out to be misleading, and we would have created a difficult and burdensome duty for authorities. That is not the idea.
In speaking to amendment No. 177, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole threw herself on the mercy of the Committee and said that she had worded it wrongly, disarming me of all the barbs that I had put in my speech to tell her that. In an attempt to be gracious, therefore, which is not always easy for me, I shall systematically remove those barbs. Her efforts to defend herself have worked.
I understand the point that the hon. Lady made, particularly with respect to the specific case that she raised, but she will understand, because the wording is wrong, that it would not be helpful for us to include in information a lurid tale of what might go wrong in an unregistered setting. We certainly need to create a balance that includes ensuring that parents receive comprehensive information about options, to enable them to choose the child care that suits them. They need to be able to judge whether a registered or unregistered setting is suitable for them and their child at the time, in their circumstances, instead of being pushed in one direction or the other by tales of what might go wrong. We can all think of things that could  go wrong in other, registered, settings, and things that have gone wrong in very highly regulated settings. I do not, therefore, think that that approach would be helpful.

Annette Brooke: To be absolutely clear, I think that parents need to know when settings are unregulated. That is really what I am trying to say, and I do not know how they are to have any idea of the difference between a crèche that operates for one hour and 59 minutes and one that operates for two hours and one minute.

Maria Eagle: I might agree with the hon. Lady that that is rather a good idea, and I am certain that without an amendment, whether well-worded or not, that is what we intend local authorities to do when they provide information about what is available in their area. I am also certain that they will want to ensure that they do that. Obviously, it is then up to parents themselves to decide what is suitable on the basis of the objective information that they receive.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of parenting classes. Of course we want to equip parents to support their children, engage in their learning and promote positive outcomes, but there are many ways besides parenting classes to do that. It would not be sensible to single out in the Bill the provision of information on parenting classes. It is our aim to ensure that families are able to access information on the whole range of parenting support, which includes parenting classes, but to list in the Bill all the services that could benefit parents—the hon. Lady guessed that I would say this—would be over-prescriptive. I will not say that that would be typical of the Liberal Democrats, which I might have been tempted to say had she not been so graceful when she introduced her amendment.
We shall ensure that local authorities are required to tell parents about parenting classes and all the other programmes that may be available locally by including a requirement in the regulations and guidance that they do so.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind amendment No. 191, as does the hon. Lady, who made clear her party’s support for it. I fully accept that parents of disabled children have not always been well served in the provision of child care. The market has not previously provided sufficient suitable places, which may be characterised as market failure. Clause 6 addresses that, which is why it specifies in particular the provision for disabled children. However, the general provision of information is not aimed at addressing market failure in the provision for any one specific group. This clause is about local authorities providing information to parents about what is available. Making some change to the details in clause 12 will not address the market failure as such and, as we want to ensure that information is provided to all parents and all disadvantaged groups, we do not think that a reference to a particular group is sensible. However, as I said, the regulations will prescribe the  content of the information. They will clearly specify that information should be provided about the services available to disabled children and their parents.

Tim Loughton: I have been listening to the Under-Secretary. She just said that it would not be sensible to single out a particular group of children, but, by her own admission, she did precisely that in clause 6(2)(a)(ii) by referring to
“the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children”.
Only disabled children are singled out. Why would it detract from the clause to include a requirement that information on such provision is provided?

Maria Eagle: I was attempting, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain that. The duty under clause 12 is to provide information about existing provision. We know that there has been a substantial market failure in respect of the provision for disabled children. Clause 6 is about improving that provision, which is why disabled children are specifically mentioned in it. Clause 12 is about providing information on what is there, not about addressing market failure and the lack of suitable child care provision to meet the needs of parents of disabled children.
I said that there will be specific reference to disabled children in the regulations. I shall do my best to ensure that they pay particular attention to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the specific needs of the parents of disabled children, and that they tackle the extra obstacles that those parents often face in finding suitable provision for their children. I believe that that will deal with concern that he raised.I hope that in the light of those explanations, hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair.]

Tim Loughton: We have had a useful discussion. I take on board the Under-Secretary’s point in response to amendment No. 108, but I think affordability need not be a purely relative term. It should include information about price and relative costs in parts of an authority, or in an area or region. I take on board her comments about it including information on tax credits and the availability of help.
I do not agree with the Under-Secretary’s points on sustainability. She accused the hon. Member for Stockport of accusing me of future-gazing, which is an interesting phrase. I am more concerned, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Stockport, that one clarification under sustainability would be how the provision is funded. Is it purely a private commercial enterprise? Has it been made possible through public funding from neighbourhood nurseries or various Sure Start-type programmes? Is it funded on a voluntary basis? Information about the nature of its funding streams and financial structures would be perfectly sensible and practical and would constitute, as far as I am concerned, a good degree of information  with which to judge sustainability, which is a subjective phrase by any measure. However, I will not push that point.
I am not convinced by what the Under-Secretary said on amendment No. 191. We often have debates about why we should not single out a group of people. They are singled out; we would all agree that people with disabilities should be singled out for particular reasons. I am not convinced by her argument that because the matter is covered in clause 6, which deals with market deficiencies, it should not be included in clause 12. The Bill does not require local authorities to publish full information about the availability of disability-friendly and disability-specialist child care places. However, I will not detain the Committee by forcing the amendment to a vote. I am grateful that the Minister has pledged to reinforce that matter in the regulations. Of course, it goes back to the problem that we have had all along, which is that without sight of the regulations it is difficult for us to judge whether the Minister will provide the sort of assurances in practice that she says she will. It is useful that we have reinforced the importance of those points in this short debate, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Duty to provide information, advice and training to childcare providers

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in page 7, line 30, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 132, 133, 138 to 144, 146 and 148.

Beverley Hughes: As hon. Members will have seen, these are all drafting amendments to improve the clarity of the Bill. Each changes the word “register” to the phrase “be registered” to reflect the fact that providers will be registered by Ofsted and will not register themselves. That will be consistent with existing provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 7, line 32, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.
No. 133, in page 7, line 39, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 13, page 7, line 42, at end insert—
‘(1A)An English local authority may, in addition to securing the provision of information, advice and training which they are required to secure under subsection (1), provide other information, advice and training to any persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection.’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 135.

Beverley Hughes: The amendments make necessary adjustments to the clause, which is about the duty to provide information, advice and training to providers. One of the amendments enables local authorities to charge for providing those services. The amendments simply improve the capacity of local authorities and give them flexibility to shape and support child care through the provision of information, advice and training to providers, and update an existing duty under section 79V of the Children Act 1989 to reflect the reforms of inspection and regulation contained in the Bill.
The information, advice and training that local authorities will have to provide will be specified in regulations and guidance. Clause 13 specifies that it must be provided to: child care providers, who must register under part 3; those who intend to become providers; and employees of providers. Amendment No. 134 allows authorities to provide information, advice and training other than the minimum listed in the regulation. Amendment No. 135 enables local authorities to make reasonable charges for the provision of that information, advice and training.

Nick Gibb: It makes sense for local authorities to be able to charge child care providers for any training that they receive, but the charges should, of course, be reasonable, and child care providers should be able to go elsewhere for that training should they wish to do so. I am concerned about local authorities charging for information and advice. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will not charge child care providers for the provision of information if that amounts solely to them carrying out their statutory duties?

Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman said, the charges have to be reasonable and proportionate to the service being offered. We will consult local authorities and providers on this matter, and I will take those representations when they come forward, but I do not want to be constrained at this point. It is important that local authorities can reasonably charge for services that they provide, which the clause would not allow them to do as it is currently drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 135, in page 8, line 2, at end insert—
‘(2A)An English local authority may impose such charges as they consider reasonable for the provision of information, advice or training provided by them in pursuance of subsection (1), (1A) or (2).’. —[Beverley Hughes.]

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(4)An English local authority must ensure all persons providing childcare in their area who are registered under Part 3 are provided with free access to, or funding in order to undertake, Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training, within one year of their registration.’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 217, in clause 43, page 21, line 37, at end insert—
‘(i)the requirement of all early years providers (childminders and other providers) in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.
Amendment No. 218, in clause 53, page 27, line 4, at end insert—
‘(f)the requirement of all later years childminders in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.
Amendment No. 219, in clause 54, page 27, line 29, at end insert—
‘(f)the requirement of all later years providers in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.
New clause 10—Requirement to undertake Safeguarding training—
‘A person applying to register as an early years or later years childminder is required to complete an accredited Local Safeguarding Children Board child protection training course before registration.’.

Annette Brooke: I do not plan to comment on new clause 10 because it is not quite as I want it. I will talk about that later.
Amendments Nos. 216 to 219 make the same point about different clauses. Amendment No. 216 may seem slightly contrary to what we have just agreed. Amendment No. 217 emphasises the requirements on early years providers, amendment No. 218 emphasises the requirements on all later years child minders, and amendment No. 219 emphasises the requirements on all later years providers in England. Each amendment requires the groups of providers to have undertaken child protection training approved by the local safeguarding children board within a year of registration.
The amendments are supported by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, the Daycare Trust and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Importantly, the providers themselves have suggested the amendments. None of us can underestimate the importance of proper training in child protection, and there may be a greater public good in the local authority paying for such a course. Indeed, I sometimes believe there to be a moral duty for the local authority to do so, particularly if there is a requirement for the training to be undertaken.
A legal requirement for child protection training is important because child care workers’ knowledge of child protection procedures, such as what they should be looking out for and what the signals are, will vary considerably. Early preventive work always includes identifying potential abuse, which is all important. Proper training is required, rather than an over-reaction to possible symptoms. It might simply be a matter of watching and observing for a while, or of knowing whom to go to in a particular setting should there be any particular concerns.
The Minister should give serious consideration to training because most of us put child protection high up the agenda, and we know that child abuse can start at a very early age.

Ann Coffey: I very much support the intentions behind the amendment, but I am concerned about it amending the Bill without proper consultation and assessment of the effect that it could have on the supply of child minders.
There is great difficulty, particularly in my constituency, in increasing the supply of child minders in disadvantaged areas, which are often the areas with the highest level of unemployment, particularly among single parents. There are many reasons for that, but one factor is that the training could be a barrier in a variety of ways, including the length of time that the course takes to complete, the degree of emphasis on written work and a very rigid interpretation of standards, because, as the Committee will be aware, local authorities provide the training, and that can vary.
I am dubious about imposing yet another standard that may have the perverse outcome of driving people into using unregistered care, because it is another obstacle for local people who want to apply to be child minders. We would not want that to happen. If we are to ensure that children are properly protected, we do not want to increase the use of unregistered child care, on which we cannot impose standards at all. If we were to achieve the outcome that the hon. Lady desires, and if such an amendment were made, it would be important to consider what the outcome might be on the supply of registered child minders.

Maria Eagle: I begin by agreeing that, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has managed to get the wording in all her amendments absolutely right. They have the impact that she hoped for, which is to modify the information, advice and training duty on local authorities, and to require them to ensure that registered child care providers have free access to training within one year of registration.
The other amendments roll on in relation to other aspects of the child care work force. The overall effect would be to place an obligation on all early years and later years providers to undertake child protection training approved or accredited by the local safeguarding children boards within a specified time, and for it to be done free of charge. The entire Committee should be in full agreement with their intention, which is to ensure that child minders and other child care providers are fully trained to understand their roles and responsibilities in protecting children or in notifying the relevant authorities if they suspect that the child may be at risk of or subject to harm.
However, for several reasons there is no necessity to include those requirements in the Bill. Activities are in place to implement children’s trusts and to establish  the local safeguarding children boards. The boards come into existence next April, taking over from the area child protection committees.
The welfare requirements of the early years foundation stage, which we will come on to in clause 43, will be given force by regulations. They will require registered providers to operate to a satisfactory standard and to keep children safe, which means that they will need to have child protection procedures in place to ensure that they can show that they are doing so.
Providers will inevitably need to arrange for their staff to undertake the training that they need to fulfil those responsibilities, including training in child protection issues where that is needed. We also intend that early years registration regulations will require providers to have in place, at the point of application for registration, a statement setting out their own child protection policy based on the local safeguarding children board procedures.
Following consultation, regulations under the Children Act 2004 are being prepared. They will require local authorities to set up local safeguarding children boards to develop policies and procedures for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local authority area. That will include training people who work with children.
Amendment No. 216 is not necessary, because its provisions are ongoing, and I shall return to whether the provisions should be free or charged for. Clause 13 does not make new policy. It simply updates an existing duty to reflect the reform of regulation and inspection that the Bill envisages.
The existing duty under section 79V of the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to secure the provision of advice and information about child minding and day care, as well as the training of people who provide those services. Under clause 13, local authorities will have wide powers to provide or support the provision of information, advice, assistance and training, and they will be able to help providers receive that training.
We do not intend the Bill to specify the matters on which information, advice and training will be given; they will be specified in regulations. The training that the hon. Lady asks to be included in the Bill will be included in the regulations, and I should have thought that local authorities will take seriously the fulfilment of duties that the Bill places on them.
The regulations and guidance will be updated to reflect the new welfare requirements—and the early years foundation stage, which we will come to in clause 43—which all providers have to meet. That includes requirements on child protection. We intend to consult on the welfare requirements to ensure that we get them right, once the Bill has completed its stages. If, in the future, it became apparent that it was necessary to require local authorities specifically to support child protection training because they were not doing so for some reason, we could do that in regulations under clause 13. There is a clear direction of travel, which  comes not only from this Bill, but from the 2004 Act and the establishment of the local safeguarding children boards.
On charging, I can see no reason why the hon. Lady wants to prevent local authorities from being able to charge as appropriate for the services that they offer. That will extend their capacity to work with providers to ensure that a wider range of them get the information, advice and training that they need. Inevitably, if local authorities have to provide that service free of charge, the provision that they make will be limited by whatever budget they set aside for it and there will be no contribution from those who benefit from the training—the individuals concerned and the providers who employ the staff. That is why I do not agree that the service should be provided free of charge.
The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport are important. There can sometimes be unintended consequences, such as driving people to unregistered or unregulated provision. No one wants that. I hope that, in the light of those remarks, the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I paid close attention to the hon. Member for Stockport, because it is always difficult to strike a balance between not making requirements too onerous and getting the necessary level of child protection training. We must evaluate that. We will have difficult choices ahead, given that we want to professionalise the work force. It will be difficult to get the right balance and there will be difficult decisions to be made along the line. I am sure that we will debate that as we progress through the Bill. I am not dismissing the comments, I am just bringing things to a conclusion.
I feel reassured and thank the Minister for saying that the matters will be dealt with in regulations. Whether or not to charge is always a difficult decision, especially when we have regulations and people are already providing a facility. The wording that we have just approved says that authorities “may” charge. In other spheres—I will not make the mistake of going off into them—I have seen examples of ridiculous charges being imposed on foster carers who have been involved in the provision of care for a long time. I rest my case on the idea that the authority “may” charge. Sometimes it is important to make certain courses free of charge. That will come out as things are rolled out, with the setting up of local safeguarding children boards and the publication of the regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Inspection

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 8, line 9, after ‘by’, insert ‘or under’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 137.

Beverley Hughes: These are drafting amendments that simply add the phrase “or under” to ensure that Ofsted’s power to inspect local authorities in relation to the new duties under the Bill extends, as was intended, to functions conferred by regulations as well as those specified in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister clarify the naming of local education authorities? What are they supposed to be called following the “Every Child Matters” document and the 2004 Act?

Beverley Hughes: We have signalled that what used to be called “local education authorities” will simply be the “local authority”. The integration of education and social care now involves the children’s trust, led by the local authority, and a wide range of other partners are included in the arrangements.
The clause makes the new local authority duties and powers in relation to improving well-being, securing child care and providing information subject to inspection by Ofsted. It ensures that those duties are subject to an independent inspection process including annual performance assessment and joint area reviews. Given the importance of independent inspection, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Charges for early years provision at maintained school

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: We touched on issues relating to the clause when we discussed amendment No. 17. However, it would be helpful if the Minister set out the position regarding charging by maintained schools for child care of children below the age of four. To what extent do primary schools have such facilities? Is the provision of chargeable child care a growing trend? What will the mechanics be for making such charges?
Is there a concern that popular primary schools will be able to insist that parents send their young children to the pre-school setting on the grounds that if they do not, their children will not be admitted to reception class when they turn four? That could enable the school to charge hefty fees as a way of raising extra  funds. How do we prevent that from happening and are there such stipulations in the revised admissions code to prevent that?
I know that the Government have withdrawn the admissions code for various, internal, Labour party reasons—[Interruption.] That sneaks out occasionally. It would help if the Minister put the Committee’s mind at rest that use of a pre-school child care setting in a maintained school will not result in such consequences.

Maria Eagle: Section 451 of the Education Act 1996 prohibits schools from charging for educational provision made during school hours. Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that we do not create problems for schools as a consequence of establishing the early years foundation stage and removing the legislative distinction between early education and care for those young age groups. That is why the clause is necessary.
On the extent to which charging currently exists within schools outside the prohibition, the picture is variable. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happens. It varies enormously from little or no charging to charging where it is possible. I hope that that gives him the sense that it is a very varied picture. Through the regulation-making powers, we intend to have clear guidance about what is possible and to give some advice to schools where there is currently no distinction between education and child care at those young ages. We need to be clear for what they are and are not allowed to charge. We hope that some of the variability will end when they get the guidance.
It would not be a fair admissions criterion to suggest that only those who pay extortionate charges for out-of-school-hours provision would be considered for admission. I suspect that a school that tried to formulate an admissions policy in those terms might quickly fall foul of complaints to the schools adjudicator, who would make close reference to the code of practice. He would be likely to say that such a policy was unfair and not allowed.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that any fears should be allayed by the schools admissions code of practice and the existence of an adjudicator, through whom, by making complaints, one can get a swift answer to whether a specific policy is fair in any given situation.
With those assurances, I repeat that the clause is needed to prevent problems arising for schools as a result of the fact that we are removing the distinction between education and child care for early age groups.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Meaning of childcare

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 9, line 25, leave out from ‘child’ to end of line 28.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 280, in page 9, line 32, at end insert—
‘(c)unregulated crèche provision.’.
No. 109, in page 9, line 40, at end insert ‘and is registered’.
No. 281, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—
‘(g)any person not registered under sections 33 and 34 below.’.
No. 110, in page 10, line 5, after ‘hospital’, insert
‘or other medical establishment providing clinical treatment or long term care’.

Tim Loughton: As the clause deals with the meaning of child care, it is fundamental to what we have been and will be debating. Again, the Conservative amendments are probing amendments.
Amendment No. 111 would leave out the part of subsection (2) that refers to “education for a child”. This might be more relevant to the debate that we will have about the clauses around clause 41, which relate to the early years foundation stage and the criteria on which that will be drawn up. Education should not be referred to as child care and we want to remove that part of the definition. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why education should be considered as part of the wider definition of child care.
Amendment No. 109 is again a probing amendment relating to foster carers. We have had many debates in Committee on previous children’s legislation relating to the registration of private foster carers. Many Conservative Members have argued long and hard that the Government should take the matter more seriously in legislation. We have a fundamental problem with an underground industry of private foster arrangements, the scale of which is unknown, but it has been estimated to involve in excess of 10,000 children. Many of those originate from west Africa and are subjected to conditions akin to that which led to the death of Victoria Climbié, which gave rise to Herbert Laming’s report and the 2004 Act.
Many of us think that the Government should go further and make it a punishable offence for those who choose not to register private fostering arrangements. We should not rely on local authorities to seek out private fostering arrangements and to investigate whether the welfare of the child or children involved is sufficiently taken into account. By their very nature, those people—they are often extended relatives or family contacts, particularly with overseas families, especially those from Nigeria and Sierra Leone, where it has been an particular problem—try to be invisible to the authorities. That is often to the detriment of the children’s health, welfare, education and so on. The Government need to go further. The 2004 Act holds out the possibility—a slim possibility, given its wording—of tougher legislation if the sort of voluntary approach taken in that Act does not bear fruit, as many fear it will not.
Subsection (4)(f) recognises private fostering. If an authority locates private foster arrangements made by people who have not registered their existence, it needs to take a closer interest in the welfare of the child than if the child were with those who have legitimate private  fostering arrangements. It is an exploratory amendment, to see exactly what the Government mean when they refer to private fostering. Hence, we say in the amendment that foster carers must be registered.
Amendment No. 110 defines the establishments where child care is not deemed to be taking place—that is, they would be exempt. Appropriate children’s homes should clearly be exempted, as should care homes, whether local authority homes or independently privately run children’s homes, and residential family centres. However, subsection (5)(a)(iii) refers only to
“a hospital in which the child is a patient”.
I am curious as to why it is limited to “a hospital”, which is why we seek to add
“or other medical establishment providing clinical treatment or long term care”.
From my reading of this part of the Bill, certain medical establishments should be included. For example, Mr. Amess, it should include hospices, a subject about which you and I were talking only this morning in Westminster Hall. It should also include other centres where children with long-term chronic conditions go to have forms of treatment—to be attached to machinery or whatever other therapy is necessary. Surely we do not expect those premises to be treated as if they provide child care. They primarily provide medical care and, in some cases, especially in hospices, respite care.
It is a probing amendment to see why the provision is so tightly defined as to exempt only hospitals. Again, the Minister may say that the definition will be widened in regulations, but it would be helpful to include it in the Bill. I see no downside in adding the words suggested.

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points on his probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing the responses.
The Liberal Democrat amendments come back to my obsession about the crèche example, but I do not need to repeat the argument. I was allowed to use the word crèche in amendment No. 280. That is part of the problem—I was told that the amendment might not be accepted if I used a word that was not in the Bill. That is how I got tangled up in trying to make similar proposals in various places. Amendments Nos. 280 and 281 have much the same purpose in that they try to point out that if something is not regulated, it should perhaps not be considered as child care so that parents will understand that it is unregulated.
The Minister kindly provided us with a copy of the exemptions power, which I have skimmed through but have not had time to read fully. It mentions the crèche and my point about being open for less than two hours, as well as a number of other circumstances in which some form of looking after children will not be regulated. I accept that we do not want to create over-burdensome regulation when there are bound to be  instances in which the temporary looking after of children will be required. However, the conclusion of the exemptions power says:
“Exemptions are important in ensuring a proportionate approach to registration and inspection. However, in every case, providers that are exempted will be able to join the Ofsted Childcare Register and enjoy the benefits that it brings. In particular, we will ask Ofsted to encourage those providers for whom registration ceases to be compulsory to join the new register and continue to be tax creditable.”
I agree with that, and I would see it as a positive if it meant that Ofsted would be respected because people had voluntarily signed up to the register. However, I am a little concerned that it might give even more credibility and strength to parents’ belief that a particular facility is regulated when it is not. I am not sure what that means, and I welcome the opportunity to ask the Minister to address my concerns, which come back to the point that a parent has to know when looking after children is unregulated. I prefer not use the term child care in such circumstances.

Beverley Hughes: I am perplexed by amendment No. 111. It seems to strike at one of the main principles of the Bill, and one of our main objectives. It would exclude education and supervised activities from the definition of care, and, therefore, of child care. In practice, that would perpetuate the split between education and care for young children, which we are trying to remove. I thought that we wanted to remove that distinction because we all agreed that the way in which young children learn and develop—the way, therefore, in which many providers provide care—depends on the integration of education and care. For young children, those things happen together; they are indistinguishable. Care cannot be considered to be of good quality unless it provides young children with opportunities to develop. That is why I am perplexed: the amendment seems to seek to undo one of the central aims of the Bill.
In the case of school-age children, local authorities would be required only to deliver child care that did not have any educational content, which I am sure is not intended to be an outcome of the amendment. It would also allow providers to avoid registering by declaring that they were delivering education, not care. That would undermine the essential safeguard that registration gives parents and children. I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will agree to withdraw that amendment.
On amendment No. 109, I think it absolutely important that the welfare of children who are privately fostered is safeguarded and protected. The hon. Gentleman took part in the discussions when the 2004 Act was going through Parliament, and he acknowledges that we made provision in that Act by updating the law on private fostering arrangements, strengthening the private fostering notification scheme and providing additional safeguards. I accept that the notification scheme is not a registration scheme, but he is aware of why that was done. It is still soon since the 2004 Act was passed and all the debates that took place on it. We concluded then that we ought first to try a notification scheme that offers a robust framework of safeguards, and we should see how that works before  introducing a tighter system of registration. In the lifetime of the registration provisions of the 2004 Act, up to November 2008, the Government will report on the impact of the new measures, the regulations and the national minimum standards before deciding whether they are sufficient and whether we need to introduce a registration scheme.
Amendments Nos. 280 and 281 seek to exclude unregulated crèches and early-years providers not required to be registered under clauses 33 and 34 from the meaning of child care in clause 18. That would mean that early-years provision for three to five-year-olds in schools would not be included in the definition of child care either, because that is not required to be registered under clause 34. It would also have the presumably unintentional effect of excluding all child care for the over-fives from the meaning of child care, because that is not required to be registered under clause 34.
I share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to raise the quality of child care as high as possible, but we need to consider the matter from the perspective of parents. The reformed inspection and regulation regime in part 3 will ensure that the majority of child care used by parents is registered by Ofsted and tax creditable. All parents have a role to play by making responsible, informed choices about how they use child care. They will be supported in making those choices by the information provided by local authorities, including on the differences between registered and unregistered child care.
On amendment No. 110, I assure the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the definition of a hospital is the same in the Bill as in the Care Standards Act 2000. It covers all the examples he gave in relation to long-term and short-term health care treatment and palliative care and includes hospices for children, so there is no need to add other medical establishments. Everything we can think of is encompassed by the definition. With those explanations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister, but amendment No. 111 is intended to be preliminary to the group on foundation years around clause 41. We are concentrating on children under five, for whom education in the traditional sense of the word is not appropriate, so we have had some explanation and a bit of a setting out of the ground on which we will be manning the barricades when it comes to that later section.

Maria Eagle: Staffing?

Tim Loughton: Or even staffing the barricades, as the Minister says. I do not wish to be even more confrontational.
On amendment No. 109, I do not share the Minister’s assurance that everything will be made rosy by the weak notification provisions in the Children Act. Effectively, we have had a notification scheme for  a number of years, and all that is in the Bill is a slightly more formalised scheme. Many of us fear that that will not take us any further forward.
A further fear is about something we have never quite understood, which is why, all the way through the Children and Adoption Bill, the Children Bill and previous responses to reports such as that from Herbert Laming, the Government were not prepared to take the plunge and go for a formal private fostering registration scheme. I genuinely remain mystified as to why, despite a lot of advice to the contrary from their own Members with great experience of child social work, they have not been prepared to go all the way. The amendment was probing, and I shall not push it to a vote at this stage, but I remain perplexed by the Government’s stand on the issue.
Finally I come to amendment No. 110. If the definition of hospital under the Care Standards Act 2000 extends to all the facilities for long-term care hospices, that is precisely the point that I was trying to stress. Presumably that fact will accompany the Bill in guidance. It would have been useful to have had some reference or definition in the Bill. The Minister’s assurance is welcome, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Meaning of “young child”

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 241, in page 10, line 21, at beginning insert ‘(1)’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 242, in page 10, line 21, leave out ‘young child’ and insert ‘baby’.
No. 278, in page 10, line 25, leave out ‘five’ and insert ‘two’.
No. 243, in page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘(2)For the purposes of this Part and Part 3, a child is a “young child” during the period—
(a)beginning immediately on the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of two, and
(b)ending immediately after the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of four.’.
No. 112, in clause 39, page 19, line 33, at end insert
‘and
(c)distinguish between such requirements applicable to children under the age of 2 (babies) and those aged over 2 (young children).’.
No. 248, in schedule 1, page 53, line 35, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
‘8(1)Section 81 of the 2002 Act (the key stages) is amended as follows.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) for “the age of six” substitute “the age of five”.’.

Tim Loughton: Again, we are setting out our stall for later debates. We take the view that children beneath the age of four should be treated differently from other children, and children from nought to two should be  treated differently as well. I will not go into great detail but will elaborate more when we reach the foundation years definition, particularly in clause 41.
I will take the first five amendments together, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will speak to amendment No. 248, which is slightly different.
The first five amendments would split the definitions in clause 19. The lead amendment has been helpfully supplied by the Clerk, I think, because it does not appear a very dramatic amendment on which to hang our arguments, simply involving inserting the figure “(1)”. I am told that for mechanical reasons it is necessary to group the other amendments under it. If we push the amendment to a vote, it may seem rather finicky, but the amendments—the first five—need to be taken holistically as a group.
It would be useful to have advice from the Government on the terms that they use. All sorts of phrases can be tossed around, but it is useful to make a distinction, as we have by referring to children between the ages of nought and two as babies and those aged between two and four as young children. We could have used a host of other definitions, but I am advised by child care experts that the two terms we use would be generally acceptable in referring to those age groups. We could use infants, we could use young children and very young children, or we could use very, very young children and very young children, but I think that babies and young children are simple enough for the age groups that we are considering. That will become important in later clauses, when the Bill tries to define the developmental requirements for babies and young children of those age groups, which we believe are different from those for older children.
The amendments are self-explanatory. We are simply elaborating on the clause, the bottom line being the definition of baby—nought to two—and of young child—two to four.

Nick Gibb: Amendments Nos. 278 and 248 are probing amendments that try to obtain clarity about the overlap between “Birth to Three Matters”, a strategy, and the foundation strategy. By its nature, “Birth to Three Matters” is a play-based strategy. The introduction to the framework says:
“The Framework takes as its focus the child and steers away from subjects, specific areas of experience and distinct curriculum headings.”
That is as it should be for what I think we will now call babies and also for the first year of being a young child.
By contrast, the foundation stage, which includes the reception class of a primary school, will begin to bring in more formal teaching. Indeed, many reception classes now begin serious work on chronological awareness and phonics teaching, and many parents and teachers see reception as the start of proper school. The early-years foundation stage brings together both those strategies. It incorporates “Birth to Three Matters” and the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage, which also emphasises play. Both  will then be incorporated into the early years foundation strategy. On page 49, the 10-year strategy says:
“The Government proposes to create a single quality framework for services for children from birth to five. The new framework will take an integrated approach to care and education, reflecting the reality of the way childcare services operate. It will be underpinned by a play-based approach to promoting children’s development and learning, building on children’s experiences to help them extend their skills and develop their understanding and confidence.”
My concern is that, if we incorporate the rising-fives into the meaning of young child and incorporate strategies applicable to toddlers to children in the reception class, that may have a dampening effect on raising standards in primary schools.
My understanding is that, for example, the literacy and mathematics frameworks cover children from three to 11, so they overlap the early-years foundation strategy. Is a territorial battle going on in the DFES over these strategies? If there is, who is winning? Is it those who are concerned about rigour and standards, or is it the other guys?
I was reassured to an extent by the wording in the document circulated to members of the Committee, which sets out some broad principles about the early-years foundation stage. I am not clear what the status of the document is—whether it is guidance, regulation or merely ministerial intention—but I am reassured by a number of paragraphs, particularly paragraph 13, which says:
“There has been a long debate about the extent to which early education should be formal or informal, often summarised by the extent to which the curriculum is or is not ‘play’ based. EPPE concludes that in the most effective centres ‘play’ environments were used to provide the basis of instructive learning. The most effective approach, and the one which will be at the core of EYFS, is both ‘teaching’ and providing freely chosen yet potentially instructive play activities.”

Helen Goodman: I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the importance of play-based activity for children. Unfortunately, I had to miss the earlier part of this afternoon’s sitting because we were launching the all-party group on children’s play, but we will discuss some of these matters in our debates on the Bill and in other forums.

Nick Gibb: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I am concerned about the debate on this matter, because some people would like the play-based approach to be extended further up the age range into primary school, which would not be effective in raising standards. We do have problems.
Tomorrow, Ofsted will publish a report that is cause for concern. It is cause for concern that 43 per cent. of 11-year-olds leave primary school without having achieved level 4 in reading, writing and arithmetic, so we should not be looking to extend playing further up the age range into primary school. I want to draw from the Minister the extent to which the play-based strategies applicable to babies and toddlers will be extended to the reception class of primary schools.
I am reassured by the document, paragraph 18 of which says:
“Suggested activities for babies will necessarily differ from the sorts of activities which are appropriate for 3 and 4 year olds.”
That is reassuring, as is the next paragraph, which says:
“We will also ensure we retain a clear focus on the Early Learning Goals, which set out challenging expectations for children’s achievement at the end of the Foundation Stage ... particularly in the areas of communication, language and literacy, and problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy where many of the existing goals are pitched at level 1 of the national curriculum.”
I am extremely reassured by paragraph 35, which says that in developing the early years foundation strategy,
“we will take account of the findings and recommendations of the Rose Review ... into the teaching of early reading”—
synthetic phonics—
“ ... in primary schools”.
Having said that, it would still be helpful if the Minister said something about the territorial dispute over reception classes, and whether that dispute is going on in the DFES or at a more philosophical level between practitioners and educationalists in the country as a whole. Are reception classes part of proper school or part of a child care settlement?

Beverley Hughes: We are trying to create a more coherent definition and framework that combines education and care for young children, and that leads them seamlessly into the more formalised learning of their primary school years.
I am confused by the two different sets of amendments. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is the author of one set, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is the author of the other. In any event, amendment No. 248 seeks to do something completely different from the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
The first group of amendments would replace the intention to provide a coherent birth-to-five phase with a disjointed set of phases that are not focused on the child and that create an unnecessary and artificial distinction between periods of child development. We all know that children develop at their own pace. It is simply not possible to say when any child ceases to be a baby. A child who develops quickly should not be held back by staying in the baby phase, but should be allowed to move on.
In fact, the “birth to three matters” framework and the foundation stage overlap considerably to allow for the fact that children develop at different rates. We propose to remove that overlap by having one coherent phase in the early years foundation stage through which children will move at their own pace. It is meant to be a stage-related framework through which children will progress according to how quickly they reach certain stages. It is not an age-related framework.

Annette Brooke: I agree with what the Minister is saying. I wonder whether the calls for this change came from experts and providers in the child care field—I understand that there have been difficulties in working with the two frameworks—rather than its being initiated from the Department.

Beverley Hughes: The practitioner world certainly see this as the next logical step on the journey that we have been undertaking with the definition of the foundation stage and the development of birth to three matters. Providers and practitioners find that useful. However, as many of them care for children from very young up to five, they feel that it would make sense to have a single coherent phase, particularly as there is an overlap to allow for the fact that some children will leave birth to three matters earlier than others.
Some anomalies would result from the proposal to split into a baby definition and a young child definition. Let me give an example. Two children—one born on 2 September 2006, the other born on 31 August 2007—would both be moved into the two to four phase on 1 September 2009, even though one would be just two and the other would be nearly three. For individual children that might be appropriate, but we cannot legislate that that would be appropriate for all children. We know that small children can make huge progress in a matter of months. There is a great deal of difference generally between what a child of nearly three and what a child of just two can do.
We shall have a debate about this on clause 41, so I shall not dwell on it now. I will simply say that what we intend to do here is completely counter to the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to withdraw it. We will certainly resist it.
That brings me to amendment No. 248, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It seems to be going in completely the opposite direction. It would bring the start of key stage 1 to the beginning of the reception year when children are four. I am surprised by it, given some Opposition Members’ strong feelings about the use of the word “taught” and about the appropriateness of formalised learning for very young children. I do not agree with the amendment and I wonder whether many of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends really agree with it either.
We want to see a coherent foundation stage from nought to five and then we want children to begin their key stage 1 learning in primary school at that appropriate age. I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman was talking about in terms of territorial splits and so on. This is an issue about which people have strong views, but I do not think that it is about protecting territory either inside or outside the Department. I think that people want to do the best for children. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I want to add a further comment on amendment No. 248. I recently visited a first school in my constituency, and saw synthetic phonics being used right around the school. The head teacher pointed out  that one of the differences between the reception class and the first year of the first school was that, in the reception class, numeracy and literacy were not dealt with in one hour sessions, but had to be in clever, bite-sized portions right through the day. The amendment would be dangerous because it would mean four-year-olds sitting down to one hour of literacy, which would be ridiculous.

Tim Loughton: We are having a little foray into this territory. The essential developmental stages of a child between the ages of nought and two will become clear later on. It is very different from what happens subsequently.
I would have been delighted to have been at the group launched by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and I duly responded to her invitation, but my priorities had to be with the Committee. I hope that I can attend future events and that the launch got off to a successful start.
Play is essential to children in their early years, which is why we have serious reservations about the way in which parts of the Bill are structured. They attempt to “educationalise” or “schoolificationalise”—crazy words that pressure groups have come up with—and detract from the prospects of children developing in the way that they should, without being put into any quasi-curriculum process from far too young an age.
There is a clear strategy to our approach. Amendment No. 248 relates to a schedule rather than a clause. However, rather than detain the Committee, we will live to fight another day on clause 41 and to go into more detail about why we think that it is essential to differentiate between early years children. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 294, in page 11, line 20, at end insert—
‘(iv)the particular needs of childcare in rural areas.’.
Part 2 relates to Wales. I have tabled the amendment even though I do not have a great deal of faith in the form of legislation used because it puts too much emphasis on the detail of what the Welsh Assembly should encourage Welsh authorities to do. I am sure that the provision of child care in rural areas in England has its own difficulties, and it certainly has in Wales. The amendment has been tabled to remind the Welsh Assembly that rural issues are important. The Welsh Assembly Government are south-east Wales-centric, believing that everything revolves around  Cardiff, in the way that the Westminster Government are south-east England-centric, believing that everything revolves the south-east of England.
The amendment would prompt and encourage the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that child care provision in rural areas is taken into account. I went around on Saturday with the Rev. Ian Charlesworth, who is responsible for Sure Start provision in the Brecon area. He explained that a big difficulty is ensuring that children from very rural areas get there to benefit from the experience. I understand also that registered child minders cannot provide that facility in houses other than their own. There are more suitable ways of going about that in rural areas. I do not understand the reason for the requirement and it seems to me that if child minders could use a domestic residence other than their own, or other premises, that might be more suitable and enable more children to participate.
My main purpose is to encourage the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the children of rural Wales enjoy the same facilities as the children of urban Wales.

Beverley Hughes: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about families in rural areas, whether in Wales or England. He is right to say that it will be for the Assembly to tackle the problem. It may be some comfort to him to know that the Welsh Assembly Government have considered it and recognised its importance in their child care strategy, “Childcare is for Children”, which explicitly acknowledges the need to contend with the fact that child care is likely to be less accessible for parents in rural areas.
I understand also that child care will be specifically considered within the new Wales transport strategy and in the guidance to the regional transport consortium for the development of a new round of local transport plans. It will be necessary to take account of child care matters in thinking about the development of transport. The duty is drawn broadly, which gives the Welsh Assembly the wherewithal to take the needs of rural areas into account. However, the detail must be left to the Assembly.

Roger Williams: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Williams: I am greatly concerned about the Bill’s provisions in relation to the National Assembly for Wales. I am reminded of the story about someone going to a reference library to look up Wales and finding the entry, “For Wales, see England.” The Bill seems to read across from England to Wales. It gives no relevance to the fact that there has been a devolved settlement and that the Government of Wales Act 1998 is in full force.
I tabled—too late—an amendment to improve the clause by providing that the Welsh Assembly Government may, by regulation, require Welsh local  authorities to secure the relevant sufficiency of provision, so far as is reasonable. Why should the Westminster Government dictate to the Assembly Government how they look after child care? Wales has moved far beyond England in child care provision. Every child over the age of three in Wales now gets 10 hours of free child care every week, provided that it is in an early years environment. There are forces families in my constituency, and those people are stationed at different times in England and Wales. When they come to Wales they see that the provision is much superior, and are pleased to take up the facilities.
The Bill is hugely prescriptive about what the National Assembly should do. The approach could be minimalist, but it seems almost impressionist, with huge swirls of colour across the Bill. It would be better if the provisions were simple and allowed the National Assembly for Wales to have powers in a simple form that enabled it to do what it wanted.

Beverley Hughes: Before we launch into any more of the clauses in part 2, perhaps I could disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his assumption that they are a Westminster imposition on the Welsh Assembly Government. They are not an imposition: they contain measures that the Welsh Assembly Government wanted and are written in the way that they wanted. This is a completely devolved matter, and the phrasing of the clauses was a matter for the Welsh Assembly, just as the task of drafting regulation and guidance, which will fall to the Assembly as a result of the powers that it secures under the Bill, will be a matter for the Assembly. If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about the drafting, he should take them to the Welsh Assembly and have his debate there.
To give just one example, clause 22 replicates clause 6, but there is an extra provision to ensure that sufficient child care provision makes use of the Welsh language. The Welsh Assembly clearly wanted that addition and it is entirely happy with the wording of all the clauses.

Roger Williams: Is the Minister confusing the Welsh Assembly Government with the Welsh Assembly? They are two entirely different things. As far as I know, the Welsh Assembly did not see the Bill until it appeared in the House, although the Welsh Assembly Government might have seen it. There is a fine but substantial distinction between those two terms. At some stage—it will not be as a result of the Government of Wales Bill, which was published last Thursday—the Welsh Assembly will have its own powers to make primary legislation. When it does, such confusions and misconceptions about the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly will not occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Duty to provide information, advice and assistance

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 13, line 4, after ‘section’, insert
‘, in a form which is fully compliant with the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 305, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—
‘(6A)Information, advice and assistance provided under this section shall be in such a form as to protect vulnerable children and young persons.’.

Roger Williams: Under amendment No. 303, local authorities would have a duty to comply with the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993, as they should and, indeed, will do. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that the National Assembly in Cardiff and, indeed, the National Assembly Government will insist on local authorities complying with the law. The amendment is, however, another reminder of the fact that information should be provided in a form that is understandable and of best value to families that speak Welsh as their first language in the home.
Amendment No. 305 would ensure that local authorities provide information in a form that protects vulnerable children and young persons. I am reminded of an incident that was related to me by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) in which her local authority sent tender forms to transport providers which indicated where disabled children lived. Such information could be taken advantage of by people who want to make contact with vulnerable children. Therefore, a duty must be placed on local authorities not to disperse information that could be misused by people who do not have young people’s best interests at heart.

Beverley Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that section 6 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 requires public bodies—Welsh local authorities are classified as such—to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in connection with the provision of services. That covers his aspirations with amendment No. 303.
In addition, section 28 of the 2004 Act requires local authorities in Wales to have regard to
“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”
in the discharge of their duties. That covers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns in relation to amendment No. 305. Legislation is already in place.
I am aware of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that they are being examined. The law to deal with such situations exists, but practice may fall short of what is expected. I therefore ask him not to press the amendments.

Roger Williams: Given the Minister’s reassurance on those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Inspection

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 13, line 37, after ‘by’, insert ‘or under’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 12 - Repayment of financial assistance: right of appeal

‘(1)A person required to repay the whole or part of any financial assistance provided by a local authority under section 24 may appeal against the decision.
(2)An appeal made under section (1) shall be heard by a special tribunal appointed by the Assembly for that purpose.’. —[Mr. Roger Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Roger Williams: I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is intended to ensure that the relationship between local authorities and child care providers is maintained at the best level and that disputes in which local authorities want to reclaim moneys from child care providers for their services, on the basis that they have not provided that which they contracted to provide, can be resolved in a more low-key manner than through the courts or other processes. The new clause provides that if there is a dispute as to whether a repayment or part of a repayment should be made, it should be done through a tribunal set up for that purpose by the National Assembly for Wales. That should enhance the relationship between local authorities and providers.

Maria Eagle: I was becoming a little worried. I am certainly slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not make it clear whether he had consulted the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Assembly about the frankly burdensome requirement that he seeks to place on them to set up a special tribunal to hear appeals from providers against a Welsh local authority’s decision to ask the providers to repay funding that the authority had given them. Perhaps the fact that he did not say that he had consulted them means that we can assume that he did not.
Mr. Williamsindicated assent.

Maria Eagle: He did not, which disappoints me, given his previous strictures. None the less, we discussed setting up separate appeals processes for  providers when we dealt with similar amendments on the English clauses.New clause 12 is slightly different from his previous amendments, but the same arguments still apply. Welsh local authorities are already working with child care providers in the private, voluntary and maintained sectors, and they will need to build on the relationships that they have developed to fulfil the duty to provide sufficient child care. That means more, not less, co-operation. We do not really want there to be fights, wars, territorial disagreements or any other military symbolism.
I appreciate that providers should be able to seek redress if they believe that the local authority has not acted properly. In the first instance, of course, one would expect them to sort out their differences with the local authority as amicably as possible. Providers who have had contractual arrangements with local authorities will have recourse through the courts if they want to challenge a local authority’s demands to repay funding, but it is important that the authorities have the power to require funding to be repaid to ensure that they can get value for money. The power is a lever for value for money in contractual arrangements with providers who are not maintained providers.
Providers always have the option of complaining to the public services ombudsman for Wales if they are not happy with the local authority’s response to their complaint. Depending on the circumstances, they can also always take action through the courts by way of judicial review if they believe that the local authority has acted illegally or irrationally.
Given those safeguards, it would an inefficient use of funds to require the Welsh Assembly to set up an entire tribunal system to consider such complaints, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the motion.

Roger Williams: I have listened very carefully to the Minister. I assure her that my intention was to make the process and the relationship between providers and local authorities better and more productive, but I shall heed her advice in future and ensure that I consult the Welsh Assembly and even the Welsh Assembly Government, if I am allowed to approach those exalted bodies, before I have the temerity to table an amendment or even a new clause.
The point has been made. I am sure that we will be able to resolve the matter in the Welsh context, perhaps by regulation, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 - General functions of the Chief Inspector

Amendments made: No. 138, in page 15, line 8, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.
No. 139, in page 15, line 9, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5)Regulations may confer further functions on the Chief Inspector relating to early years provision or later years provision in England.’.
I will not detain the Committee long given the hour and that it is dark outside. The amendment goes back to the debate about regulation and the powers of the executive order. It merely tries to replace subsection (5), which gives the Secretary of State the power by order to extend the number of functions for Ofsted and replaces that with a regulation that can be prayed against or debated under the affirmative procedure. That will mean we have a chance to debate whether we extend the remit of Ofsted. There will be serious concerns if Ofsted’s role extends too far beyond the educational sphere.

Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is to ensure that significant additional functions are not added to those of the chief inspector without first being subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, I understand that. I reassure him straight away that the provision is not intended to be used for any substantive change to the functions of the chief inspector. It is important that the Secretary of State can act in response to issues or concerns that may arise. It is difficult by definition to predetermine when that might be. Regulations governing such requirements could be prepared only once a particular issue had emerged. Obviously, the amendment would place considerable constraint on our ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances.
The main argument is that the provision is not new. It replicates the provisions of section 2 of the Education Act 2005, which were carried forward from previous legislation, which was the School Inspections Act 1996, from a Conservative Administration. The arrangements are long standing and have been used well and proportionately under different Administrations. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am sure that Labour Members raised such points at the time of the original Act. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, but her reassurance is on the record, which is helpful. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Maintenance of the two childcare registers

Amendment made: No. 140, in page 15, line 39, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: In representations that we have received on the issue of the two child care registers, a number of organisations were concerned that it might be confusing to have two. Will the Minister comment on how that would be dealt with, so that there is no confusion?

Beverley Hughes: Once people become familiar with the new regulation inspection framework, they will see that the matter makes sense in the panoply of new arrangements that the Bill is putting forward. There will be an early-years register for all providers of care for children under five, who will be compelled to register. There will also be the Ofsted child care register for children aged over five but under eight. That will be split into two parts. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know, child minders will be required to register, and providers for those aged over eight may register voluntarily. That reflects the new structure of regulation and inspection in the Bill, which reflects the early-years foundation stage and so on, and it makes sense in the light of the new arrangements that we are debating. Clearly, Ofsted will do its best to ensure that people understand the new arrangements. They will become familiar with the arrangements once they become well known, and they are fairly well known already.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Requirement to register: early years childminders

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 34, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
No. 284, in clause 34, page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
No. 123, in clause 51, page 25, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
No. 124, in clause 52, page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
No. 202, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
‘(ac)an order under section 33,’.
No. 203, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
‘(ad)an order under section 34,’.
No. 206, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert
‘(ag)an order under section 51,’.

Nick Gibb: The principle that I shall talk about in relation to amendment No. 121 also applies to amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 17 in relation to clauses 51, 52 and 34 respectively.
Amendment No. 121 would remove subsection (2) from clause 33. That subsection gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to enable a child minder  to carry on child minding while not being on the register. Before the relevant document was circulated, I could not envisage any circumstances in which that would happen, particularly given the importance of regulating child minding. However, the note sent by the Minister sets out a range of types of provision that will be exempted. I am not sure what status the piece of paper has, but it sets out a large number of reasons why a child minder would not need to be registered and could carry on child minding without being on the register.
The paper talks, for example, about child-minding provision that operates for less than two hours a day or on fewer than six days a year. It says that nannies and babysitters should be exempted. However, those are exempted under existing legislation. The list goes on to talk about child minding provided between 6 pm and 2 am, which means babysitting, either in the child’s home or other domestic premises. Also on the list are babysitting in hotels; crèches that enable parents to go shopping or engage in sporting activities; and activity-based provision, such as that which involves drama, dance, arts and crafts and sport, where the child is looked after while the activities take place.
I am reassured by the piece of paper circulated last night about what the exemptions are all about, but why does the Minister feel that the broad provision in the Bill is necessary? Why does she not incorporate those specific exemptions in the Bill or in regulation? She could have published that at the same time as the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 relate to regulations under what will be sections 33, 34 and 51. These simple amendments would ensure that any such regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure.

Beverley Hughes: I am glad that, having seen the note that we circulated, which reflects the current position and how we apply it in the light of the new arrangements in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has accepted both the principle of exemption and that the examples that we have included are—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he does not accept the principle. I must have misunderstood him; I thought that he was saying he was reassured by what he had read in the note and that the exemptions were reasonable. The principle is important.
With regard to exemptions, we are talking about situations, which, were they not exempted, would be required to go through the whole panoply of registration and inspection by Ofsted. They would be required to deliver the early-years framework if caring was for children under five.
The situations that we have defined—where provision operates for less than two hours a day, or on fewer than six days a year, or where nannies and babysitters are caring for children in their own homes—reflect the fact that there is part of the arena of child care that is within the province of parents. I have heard the argument put by Conservative Members on many occasions that within the more private and  domestic sphere, parents themselves have a responsibility and a duty to satisfy themselves with the care that they leave their children within. It is not the case that every single situation, however brief and for whatever purpose, could or should be regulated by Government. There must be an appropriate balance. That is why the power to exempt is in the clause, and the paper that we circulated last night gives some indication about the situations that we would seek to exempt.
I hope that hon. Members agree that it would be disproportionate to require that settings in which children are looked after for such short periods, or in their own home, should be registered. At present, Ofsted has to decide whether a particular provision counts as child care and therefore needs to be registered, and that is often a difficult decision for Ofsted to make. Care does not happen in isolation: care and early education happen simultaneously. However, at present, care is required to be registered and education is not. When older children play football at an after-school club, is that child care that needs to be registered, or is it activity-based provision, which does not? The Bill’s new approach will take away that grey area about what is or is not required to be registered. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured by the paper that we circulated.
Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 would constrain our ability to adjust the Bill to meet the needs of changing times. They would require exemption orders to be approved by both Houses before they came into force. We take seriously the need for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, but for the exceptions, the arrangements that we are proposing are proportionate and satisfactory. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments.

Nick Gibb: Of course the Bill does not clarify the grey area, or it would not be necessary to include the list of activities not covered by the requirement to register activities. It would be absurd for a babysitter or a nanny, or the chap who looks after children playing football on a Saturday morning, to have to register. We agree with the Minister on that. Perhaps the legislation should be drafted so that it does not include those activities in the first place. If that is not possible, it would be better if that were incorporated either on the face of the Bill to make it clear that the activities are not covered by the requirement to register, or by regulation published now with the Bill to make it absolutely clear. That would remove the grey areas. The matter has been aired, and we have it on the record that those activities are not meant to be registrable child-minding activities, which I think is helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 15 December at Nine o’clock.